Presidential Debate & Mainstream Media
Posted: Friday, November 16, 2007
by Spadecaller
Spadecaller's Corner
CNN, the Nevada Democratic Party, and the Democratic National Committee converged on the University of Nevada in Las Vegas last night. Presidential hopefuls, Senator Joe Biden (D-Delaware), Senator Chris Dodd (D-Connecticut), Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-New York), former US Senator John Edwards (D-North Carolina), Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), US Senator Barack Obama (D-Illinois), and Governor Bill Richardson (D-New Mexico) stepped up to the plate. Wolf Blitzer, CNNs anchorman, stood on the pitchers mound hurling them his crafty screwballs along with a few fastballs. Carl Hubble, the Hall of Fame pitcher with the New York Giants, perfected the curveball in 1934. Screwballs are similar to curveballs, but with a reverse wrist action that gives them a spin. Carl Hubbles explanation of the pitch sums up Blitzers performance best; The screwball's an unnatural pitch. Nature never intended a man to turn his hand like that throwing rocks at a bear." If you could tolerate the droning voice of Wolf Blitzer slinging his questions like Hubbles screwballs, youre either ready for the hat factory or sainthood. Nonetheless, I took me seat in the stands, cracked my peanuts, and carefully observed.
The overly exaggerated story about her apparent waffling on the subject only steered the focus away from the real and more pressing issues. How connected is Senator Clinton to special interests? Now theres a question Americans need answered. Unfortunately, Wolf Blitzer, CNNs corporate lackey omitted the subject entirely. Once again, mainstream media is using decoys to dodge the most important issues. For that reason it was no surprise seeing Wolf on the mound last night.
Blitzer went on to pose the question to Barack Obama; youve been among those critical of Senator Clinton. Youve suggested shes triangulating, whatever that means, on some of the key issues; shes running a textbook Washington campaign, youve suggested that. I want you to explain, if you dont mind, Senator, what do you mean by that?
Anyone following the news knows what Barack meant about triangulating. In attempting to appeal to three entities: minority voters, Americans who demand border security, and the media, she came off looking like the shrewd politician, which we all know she is anyway. Of course Blitzer had to throw in his whatever that means when he tossed his question at Senator Obama. If the media wants to hike their ratings, they can at least choose something of greater importance; like her connections to powerful lobby groups. Wolf Blitzer was not the man for that job. He had a game to pitch last night and that is exactly what he did.
Here comes the fastball: Congressman Kucinich, you voted against the Patriot Act when it was first introduced. You've since voted again against it. But some would say yesterday's plot that was described by the FBI underscores the need for precisely that kind of tough measure to deal with potential terrorists out there.
Did you hear a question? I didnt. That seemed to be more of an editorial. Nevertheless, Kucinich hit the fastball out of the stadium with his quick reply, Benjamin Franklin once said that those who would give up their essential liberties to achieve a sense of security deserve neither.
Which would you give priority to as the next president: defending national security or defending the constitution? Blitzer continued asking the candidates the same question. Senator Obama replied, The concepts are not contradictory, Wolf . After repeating the question again, Wolf cleverly tried to interpret Governor Richardsons comments; What youre saying, Governor, is that human rights, at times, are more important than American national security? Blitzer used the bully pulpit for fear mongering instead of conducting an impartial debate. The debate turned into a shameful masquerade for promoting party politics.
Why does Blitzer presume that the two priorities of liberty and national security cannot coexist? It is like asking a parent will they make the priority of keeping their children clothed even if it means stealing from your neighbor. Blitzers question reflects the sad truth about our current leadership. A president must never choose between upholding the rule of law and defending the national security. What ever happened to give me liberty or give me death? Have those old axioms become pass under the Bush regime? We must consult the devil when under assault. Is that the new protocol for governing?
Do we not all face that same universal dilemma during our daily lives? When fear that we may lose our livelihoods or our prospects for a secure future, do we seek to justify breaking the law to absolve those fears? For those of us who are not heads of state, we know that we will likely suffer the consequences of such derelictions. Some of us are imbued with a moral code too rich in value to dare that sacrifice. Unfortunately, by the time most of our political leaders graduate to positions of authority, they have already made their deals with the devil. Last night in Las Vegas, Blitzers question revealed more about American politics than any one candidates reply.
Towards the end of the debate, Blitzer could not resist asking the same old question, would you insist that any nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court supported abortion rights for women? Let's go down the whole panel, and if you could give me a short yes or no; would you insist on a Supreme Court nominee supporting abortion?
Doesnt the question presume that the law as it stands is not something worthy of equal respect in comparison with all the other amendments adopted as law into the constitution? The question in itself forces an interpretation that discriminates against good and bad laws and invites the politicization of the role of appointing justices. The media is largely responsible for aggravating the differences that exist among Americans. Exploitation by mainstream media has become commonplace. Blitzer exploits his role as anchorman by exacerbating a secondary conflict to avoid the primary issues Americans need addressed.
Havent we already suffered enough as a nation from intolerance? Wolf is more like a carpetbagger than a journalist seeking to provide a platform for an informative debate. The ha-I-got-ya approach only confuses the issues, increases fear, and thwarts the opportunity for candidates to provide answers. While the regard for politicians appears to be at an all time low, the chance of redemption of any candidate has been virtually eliminated by the mainstream media.
The candidates first had to avoid the traps that Blitzer set within the confines of his skewed questions. Why does anyone need to believe that national security and human rights are conflicting values? Yet, according to Blitzers question, Bush must be justified for denying human rights. Torture or terrorism, which do you prefer? Is that a fair question?
Dennis Kucinich is not the only one that resents how those questions were fabricated. Wolfs inquiries stereotyped the democratic candidates. I am not a great fan of either parties, but Americans do not need more subterfuge and confusion than we currently have. Blitzers questions were clearly designed to make democrats appear weak on national security and weak on illegal immigration. The only candidate brave enough to confront Blitzers insidious manipulation was Dennis Kucinich; he was the only one courageous enough to confront Wolf directly; I resent the way that question is framed? I must applaud his candor.
The majority of Americans want the war to end and to see their nation and government work together; regrettably, that is exactly what mainstream media does not want to happen. Owned and controlled by the special interests, the media prefers to keep the American people weak and divided. I learned more about Wolf Blitzer and CNN last night during the debate than I did about the candidates positions. I leave you to answer the usual question that always follows these debates: who were the winners and the losers?
This Article has been viewed 50 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (1 total)Very astute critique and commentary on the questions posed to the candidates.
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.